BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

8 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Short Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai713Delhi397Chennai244Bangalore225Ahmedabad180Jaipur179Kolkata105Raipur80Pune64Chandigarh52Hyderabad46Indore42Nagpur38Surat38Lucknow27Guwahati24Rajkot22Visakhapatnam21Agra11Karnataka11Patna9Amritsar8Cuttack8Cochin6Kerala3Dehradun2Jodhpur2Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 14828Section 15116Section 14712Section 271(1)(c)8Reopening of Assessment8Addition to Income8Section 271(1)(b)4Section 69A4Section 143(2)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 182/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

147. It is quite plain that as in that case,\neven here the expression of opinion by Shah Commission on the\nalleged under-invoicing of exports cannot qualify as information so as\nto sustain a belief on the part of the Assessing Officer of income\nhaving escaped assessment.\n27. The following cases, Writ Petition Nos.8

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

4
Section 374
Short Term Capital Gains4
Unexplained Money4
ITA 180/CTK/2020[209-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

147. It is quite plain that as in that case,\neven here the expression of opinion by Shah Commission on the\nalleged under-invoicing of exports cannot qualify as information so as\nto sustain a belief on the part of the Assessing Officer of income\nhaving escaped assessment.\n27. The following cases, Writ Petition Nos.8

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 179/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025AY 2009-10
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

147. It is quite plain that as in that case,\neven here the expression of opinion by Shah Commission on the\nalleged under-invoicing of exports cannot qualify as information so as\nto sustain a belief on the part of the Assessing Officer of income\nhaving escaped assessment.\n27. The following cases, Writ Petition Nos.8

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 181/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

147. It is quite plain that as in that case,\neven here the expression of opinion by Shah Commission on the\nalleged under-invoicing of exports cannot qualify as information so as\nto sustain a belief on the part of the Assessing Officer of income\nhaving escaped assessment.\n27. The following cases, Writ Petition Nos.8

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,NFAC,DELHI, NFAC DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 87/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack04 Jun 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

147 to 151 of the Act and therefore the reassessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts in circumstances in confirming the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 as short term capital gain whereas the assessee is a Real Estate developer and registered the flats valued at Rs.4

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 90/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack04 Jun 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

147 to 151 of the Act and therefore the reassessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts in circumstances in confirming the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 as short term capital gain whereas the assessee is a Real Estate developer and registered the flats valued at Rs.4

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 91/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack04 Jun 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

147 to 151 of the Act and therefore the reassessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts in circumstances in confirming the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 as short term capital gain whereas the assessee is a Real Estate developer and registered the flats valued at Rs.4

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 86/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack04 Jun 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

147 to 151 of the Act and therefore the reassessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts in circumstances in confirming the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 as short term capital gain whereas the assessee is a Real Estate developer and registered the flats valued at Rs.4